Access to cervical screening for women with lower limb mobility impairments: an integrative literature review
Intended for healthcare professionals
Evidence and practice    

Access to cervical screening for women with lower limb mobility impairments: an integrative literature review

Katrina Verso Registered nurse, The Northern Ireland Cancer Centre, Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Belfast, Northern Ireland
Helen Kerr Senior lecturer, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland

Why you should read this article:
  • To understand that women with mobility impairments have lower rates of uptake of cervical screening and a higher incidence of cervical cancer than those without mobility impairments

  • To recognise the challenges of accessing cervical screening attendance for women with mobility impairments

  • To acknowledge the important role of the nurse in improving uptake of cervical screening for women with mobility impairments

Cervical cancer, the fourth most frequently diagnosed malignancy worldwide, is largely preventable through cervical screening and human papillomavirus vaccination programmes. Despite this, there is a higher incidence of cervical cancer in women with lower limb mobility impairments, and lower rates of cervical screening uptake, compared with those without such impairments. This article reports the findings of an integrative literature review that explored the challenges experienced by women with lower limb mobility impairments in accessing cervical screening services and identified strategies used to overcome these challenges. Challenges included environmental barriers, time constraints, inadequate education of healthcare professionals and lack of awareness of the need for cervical screening for this patient population. Nurses, as the healthcare professionals who most often carry out cervical screening, must take the lead in addressing these challenges. The word ‘women’ is used in this article to reflect the cohorts in the studies reviewed and the terminology used in the literature search.

Cancer Nursing Practice. doi: 10.7748/cnp.2023.e1842

Peer review

This article has been subject to external double-blind peer review and checked for plagiarism using automated software

@kerr03

Correspondence

h.kerr@qub.ac.uk

Conflict of interest

None declared

Verso K, Kerr H (2023) Access to cervical screening for women with lower limb mobility impairments: an integrative literature review. Cancer Nursing Practice. doi: 10.7748/cnp.2023.e1842

Published online: 23 August 2023

Background

Cervical cancer is the fourth most frequently diagnosed malignancy worldwide, with an estimated 604,000 new diagnoses and 342,000 deaths globally in 2020 (Sung et al 2021). It has been estimated that 99.8% of cervical cancer diagnoses are preventable (Cancer Research UK 2023). This is due in part to effective cervical screening and human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination programmes (Johnson et al 2019).

Cervical screening, also known as a ‘smear’ or ‘pap test’ (papanicolaou smear), involves removal of a small sample of cells from the cervix, which are then sent for laboratory examination (Peate 2019). It is undertaken by a healthcare professional, usually a nurse (NI Direct 2023), in a general practice or primary care or gynaecology clinic setting (Arbyn et al 2010). In the UK, all women aged 25-64 years who are registered with a GP are automatically invited to attend cervical screening (Young and Robb 2021). HPV testing was introduced in the UK in 2019 as the primary method of cervical screening, as cervical cancer is predominantly caused by infection with high-risk subtypes of HPV (HR-HPV) (Nemec et al 2022). This involves initial laboratory testing of the sample for HR-HPV; if the presence of this virus is detected, cytology is undertaken to identify or rule out the presence of cell abnormalities (Smith et al 2022).

A higher incidence of cervical cancer has been found in women with physical disabilities compared with women without physical disabilities (Iezzoni et al 2021). Women with physical disabilities have also been found to be less likely to engage with cervical screening (Sakellariou and Rotarou 2017) and to have lower rates of cervical screening uptake than those without (Baruch et al 2022). A report published by UK charity Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust (2019) revealed that women with physical disabilities experienced challenges in accessing cervical screening, with some reporting they were denied screening due to a lack of suitable equipment or the presumption by staff that they did not require the service. Under the Equality Act 2010, the NHS is legally required to make adjustments to provide equity of access to healthcare services for people with disabilities. It is important, therefore, to explore the challenges to accessing cervical screening experienced by this population and to identify solutions to improve uptake.

The term physical disability relates to a broad category of disabilities, usually involving the motor systems and limitations on movement (Werner and Shulman 2015). In this article, the term lower limb mobility impairment (or mobility impairment) is used and is understood to mean a limitation in the physical movement or manipulation of one or more extremities. The word ‘women’ is used to reflect the cohorts in the studies reviewed and the terminology used in the literature search.

Key points

  • Challenges to accessing cervical screening for women with mobility impairments include the absence of a suitable examination table, structural building barriers and a lack of time

  • Nurses responsible for cervical screening must review their environment and resources to ensure they can adequately support individuals with lower limb mobility impairments

  • Specific education and training should be provided to nurses undertaking cervical screening and should include supporting individuals with lower limb mobility impairments to ensure safe practice and equity of care

  • Nurses have an important health education role in advising and promoting the uptake of cervical screening among individuals with lower limb mobility impairments

Aim

The primary aim was to explore the challenges experienced by women with lower limb mobility impairments in accessing cervical screening services. The secondary aim was to identify strategies used to overcome the challenges.

Method

An integrative literature review was undertaken using a systematic search strategy and structured framework for analysis of findings. Five electronic databases were searched: Embase, Scopus, MEDLINE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Web of Science. The reference lists of included articles, the grey literature and Google Scholar were also searched to identify additional relevant records. Search terms are listed in Table 1 and the inclusion and exclusion criteria are listed in Table 2. The populations in the studies were limited to adults to align with the age range for cervical cancer screening programme guidelines (Young and Robb 2021).

Table 1.

Search terms

NumberSearch terms
1Cervical cancer
2Cervical neoplasm
3Cervical cancer screen*
4Cervical smear*
5Smear test*
6Vaginal smear*
7Cervical check
8National cervical screening programme
9Cancer screening
10Pap smear*
11Pap test*
12Papanicolaou smear
13HPV test*
141 OR 2 OR 3 OR 4 OR 5 OR 6 OR 7 OR 8 OR 9 OR 10 OR 11 OR 12 OR 13
15Physical disabil*
16Disabled person*
17Physical mobility impairment*
18Mobility limitation
19Physical impairment
20Mobility impairment
21Mobility decline
22Mobility disabil*
23Limited mobility
24Wheelchair
25Wheelchair user*
26Wheelchair bound
27Paraplegi*
28Spinal cord injur*
29Health services for persons with disabilities
3015 OR 16 OR 17 OR 18 OR 19 OR 20 OR 21 OR 22 OR 23 OR 24 OR 25 OR 26 OR 27 OR 28 OR 29
3114 AND 30

*Searches for variations of a word with the same base

Table 2.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

InclusionExclusion
  • Articles published between January 2012 and July 2021

  • Primary research

  • Articles related to cervical cancer screening

  • Adult women

  • All healthcare professionals, nurses, GPs and gynaecologists

  • Articles published in the English language

  • Articles related to other cancer screening

  • Studies related to people with learning disabilities or other non-mobility related disabilities

  • Studies focusing on the prevalence and statistics of cervical cancer and cervical cancer screening

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) (Page et al 2021) provided a framework to summarise the search and screening process. The initial database search generated 622 articles, of which eight were selected for inclusion in the review.

A data extraction form was used to extract relevant data for each included study. The methodological rigour of each study was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) qualitative studies checklist (CASP 2018) and the randomised controlled trial checklist (CASP 2020). The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (Hong et al 2018) was used to complete a quality appraisal for two of the included studies. The database searches, data extraction tables and quality appraisal were completed independently by both authors, who then met to reach a consensus. Using the iterative process outlined by Whittemore and Knafl (2005), the eight articles were examined to identify themes related to the aims of the review.

The main characteristics and quality appraisal of the eight studies reviewed are shown in Table 3, available at: rcni.com/cervical-screening-mobility-impairment

Findings

Three themes emerged that related to the primary aim:

  • Environmental barriers and time constraints.

  • Inadequate education of healthcare professionals.

  • Lack of awareness of the need for cervical screening for women with lower limb disabilities.

Two themes emerged that related to the secondary aim:

  • Modifications for cervical screening procedure.

  • Previous relationship with the healthcare professional.

Environmental barriers and time constraints

Seven studies reported on environmental issues (Angus et al 2012, Hachipola et al 2017, Hanlon and Payne 2017, Halcomb et al 2019, Kilic et al 2019, Pearson et al 2020, Sonalkar et al 2020), including the absence of a suitable examination table, structural building barriers and a lack of time, which posed significant challenges for women with mobility impairments in accessing cervical screening.

Five of these studies (Hachipola et al 2017, Hanlon and Payne 2017, Kilic et al 2019, Pearson et al 2020, Sonalkar et al 2020) reported on the lack of a suitable examination table, with participants commenting that it was painful, difficult or impossible to position comfortably. Three studies (Hachipola et al 2017, Hanlon and Payne 2017, Halcomb et al 2019) reported that participants required assistance from non-healthcare staff, such as friends or security personnel, to transfer to the examination table. In Halcomb et al’s (2019) study, involving an online survey of 178 practice nurses, respondents reported using adjustable examination tables that could be lowered to facilitate the transfer and support of patients into a comfortable position. However, one patient participant in Sonalkar et al’s (2020) study reported that although the clinic had adjustable tables they did not lower to wheelchair height, which meant the examination could not take place.

Structural building barriers, including narrow hallways and small examination rooms that hindered movement, were identified in five studies (Angus et al 2012, Hachipola et al 2017, Hanlon and Payne 2017, Kilic et al 2019, Sonalkar et al 2020). However, these five studies had small sample sizes, which could affect the generalisability of results.

Participants in Angus et al’s (2012) and Hanlon and Payne’s (2017) studies reported lack of time as a challenge, with some participants commenting that they required more time for their cervical screening appointment due to challenges with undressing and positioning on the examination table and that it was difficult to locate a clinic that could provide this. One participant in Angus et al’s (2012) study expressed the need for extra time for cervical screening as her muscles became more spastic if she was rushed. Correspondingly, Sonalkar et al (2020) reported that healthcare professionals believed they could provide a better service for women with mobility impairments if they had additional time.

Inadequate education of healthcare professionals

Inadequate training and education of healthcare professionals in performing cervical screening for women with mobility impairments was reported in five studies (Hachipola et al 2017, Hanlon and Payne 2017, Kilic et al 2019, Pearson et al 2020, Sonalkar et al 2020). Women with lower limb impairments reported that they had to educate their healthcare professional about their disabilities (Sonalkar et al 2020) and advocate for themselves in requesting cervical screening (Angus et al 2012).

In a qualitative study by Kilic et al (2019), participants (women who use wheelchairs) suggested there was a need for healthcare professionals, especially nurses, to undergo specific training in providing health screening to people with lower limb mobility impairments. Healthcare professionals also reported an absence of training and lack of experience in providing healthcare for women with disabilities (Hachipola et al 2017, Sonalkar et al 2020). Sonalkar et al (2020) found that healthcare professionals only learned how to undertake gynaecological examinations, such as cervical screening for patients with a mobility impairment, through experience and that the lack of training made them feel anxious about undertaking such procedures. These healthcare professionals also reported there were insufficient guidelines to support decision-making about pelvic examinations for women with disabilities (Sonalkar et al 2020).

This issue was also identified in a study by Hachipola et al (2017) in which healthcare professionals reported they received no training or education on how to care for someone with a disability and that this negatively affected the quality of cervical screening. Halcomb et al (2019), however, suggested that as registered nurses have completed an accredited nursing course they are deemed competent to work with people with disabilities.

Two studies (Angus et al 2012, Hanlon and Payne 2017) revealed challenges related to healthcare professionals’ attitudes to sexuality, with an assumption that women were not sexually active due to their disability.

Lack of awareness of the need for cervical screening for women with lower limb mobility impairments

Two studies reported challenges associated with lack of adequate information about cervical screening for women with mobility impairments (Hachipola et al 2017, Kilic et al 2019). Participants in Kilic et al’s (2019) study reported having inadequate knowledge about how cervical screening could be undertaken for a wheelchair user, which deterred them from attending screening.

Peterson et al (2012) undertook a randomised controlled trial to examine the effects of an intervention involving an educational workshop and telephone support system on uptake of cervical screening for women with mobility impairments. The researchers found that the intervention group received more cervical screenings than the control group at post-test, which suggested that education and telephone support could improve screening uptake among this population. There was 26% attrition over the course of the study, with a high proportion of attrition in the intervention group, which has a potential for selection bias.

Modifications for cervical screening procedure

Four studies discussed using a modified technique to undertake cervical screening, including alternative positioning and use of pillows (Angus et al 2012, Halcomb et al 2019), lying on the floor instead of the examination bed (Halcomb et al 2019) and undertaking the screening while standing up, when this was an option (Hanlon and Payne 2017).

The practice nurse participants in Halcomb et al’s (2019) study reported altering the technique for speculum insertion to accommodate women with reduced hip movement and supporting the patient with dressing and transferring on and off the examination table. These participants also reported that modified access such as ramps and accessible consultation rooms were available in clinics (Halcomb et al 2019). Only 60% of participants in this study had experience of working with people with physical disabilities (Halcomb et al 2019). Participants in Angus et al’s (2012) study discussed accessible health centres that offered longer appointments, accessible rooms and equipment and support staff, however one participant expressed that she did not want to be segregated.

Two studies (Halcomb et al 2019, Sonalkar et al 2020) discussed the use of medicine as a modification, such as the administration of analgesia or mild sedatives, which were reported to be helpful during pelvic examinations such as cervical screenings. One participant in Pearson et al’s (2020) study reported she could not have cervical screening without analgesia but that her GP or primary physician was unwilling to administer this and had referred her to hospital for examination under sedation.

Previous relationship with the healthcare professional

Patient participants in two studies identified that having a relationship history with the healthcare professional improved the cervical screening process (Hanlon and Payne 2017, Sonalkar et al 2020), while healthcare professional participants in Sonalkar et al’s (2020) study noted that when they were aware of patients’ needs in advance they could provide more efficient cervical screening. Participants in the study by Hanlon and Payne (2017) suggested that having a trusting relationship with their healthcare professional encouraged them to attend cervical screening appointments and this relationship facilitated a tailored approach to the procedure.

Discussion

The findings of this review provide an insight into the challenges experienced by women with mobility impairments in accessing cervical screening and some potential solutions. The findings have significant implications for nurses, who are often the healthcare professional who undertakes this procedure.

Challenges

One of the main challenges identified in the studies reviewed related to accessing the examination room and, specifically, the absence of a suitable or adjustable examination table. This challenge is reflected in a US-based online survey of wheelchair users (n=432) that explored respondents’ experience of accessing healthcare (Stillman et al 2017). Most respondents reported that the main barrier was the examination room and the availability of an adjustable examination table; several respondents indicated that they did not attend cervical screening due to the challenges of transferring to and from the examination table (Stillman et al 2017). These findings suggest that those involved in undertaking cervical screening lack awareness of how to support individuals with lower limb mobility impairment to transfer to an examination table.

A UK study of women’s (n=34) experiences of cervical screening reported that they found the process embarrassing, uncomfortable and painful (Armstrong et al 2012). Women with mobility impairments have reported the added embarrassment of requiring assistance from friends (Kilic et al 2019) or from a security guard (Hanlon and Payne 2017) to transfer to the examination table. Halcomb et al (2019) discussed how one woman with a physical disability was supported to have cervical screening while lying on the floor, as she was unable to transfer to the examination table. While the researchers did not provide information on the woman’s opinion of this situation, it could be argued that this was an undignified approach to healthcare delivery.

Nurses responsible for cervical screening must review their environment and resources to ensure they can adequately support people with lower limb mobility impairments. While some GP and/or primary care services are equipped to support people with lower limb mobility impairments, this is not available in all areas (Groenewegen et al 2021). To address environmental barriers, other screening methodologies should be explored. For example, there is evidence to suggest the validity of HPV self-sampling in ‘hard-to-reach’ women (Madzima et al 2017), although there has been little research completed on its use among individuals with mobility impairments to determine if this is a viable option.

Inadequate education and training for nurses was also identified as a challenge to accessing cervical screening and there was a suggestion that nurses often felt ill-equipped to manage the needs of women with mobility impairments. Although Halcomb et al (2019) implied that all registered nurses are deemed competent in providing healthcare services to people with disabilities, this was not reflected in the studies reviewed. The authors of this article examined a qualitative study of the experience of women with cerebral palsy in relation to screening programmes such as cervical screening (Shah et al 2022). Although this study related to the aim of the literature review, it was published outside of the search strategy date range and was not therefore included. Nevertheless, the message from the study was the effect of the presence or absence of education in relation to the woman’s disability on their participation in cervical screening. Participants expressed that nurses did not understand their disability and how it might affect cervical screening, and believed there was a need for better education and training for all nurses (Shah et al 2022).

Specific education and training should be provided to nurses undertaking cervical screenings and should include supporting individuals with lower limb mobility impairments to ensure safe practice and equity of care. Additionally, practice should be supported with relevant guidelines – which Sonalkar et al (2020) suggested were absent in many clinical areas – to assist decision-making. An example of the type of decisions healthcare professionals encounter in this context is balancing the risk to women of undertaking cervical screening under sedation with the benefits of having cervical screening (Sonalkar et al 2020). Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust (2019) has also recommended that GP practices should review their policies on cervical screening to ensure pathways and resources are available to facilitate access for all women with disabilities.

The misconception that women with mobility impairments do not require cervical screening as they are not sexually active was referred to in two studies (Angus et al 2012, Hanlon and Payne 2017). This misconception was also identified by Shah et al (2022) – with one participant discussing how she felt her sexual health was not taken seriously by her doctor with an assumption that she was not sexually active – and cited in a report by Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust (2019), where 20% of women reported that assumptions were made that they were not sexually active due to their physical disability. Given the higher incidence of cervical cancer in women with mobility impairments (Iezzoni et al 2021), nurses should raise awareness of this fact and ensure their colleagues are aware of the need for cervical screening in this population.

The review also identified a lack of information on cervical screening for women with mobility impairments (Hachipola et al 2017, Kilic et al 2019), which may contribute to lower rates of uptake. One study reported an increased uptake of cervical screening in women with mobility impairments following education workshops and telephone support (Peterson et al 2012), which emphasises the important role of education in enhancing attendance. Nurses have an important health education role in advising and promoting the uptake of cervical screening (King and Busolo 2022).

Potential solutions

Strategies to improve access to cervical screenings identified in the review included modifications, such as the use of alternative techniques for undertaking the procedure (Angus et al 2012, Hanlon and Payne 2017, Halcomb et al 2019, Sonalkar et al 2020).

Having a therapeutic relationship with the healthcare professional was also found to improve access (Hanlon and Payne 2017, Sonalkar et al 2020); this relationship supported a more person-centred approach because the nurse was more aware of the woman’s needs (Hanlon and Payne 2017). This important strategy supports a primary care-based approach to cervical screening where relationships with healthcare professionals such as nurses are already established, rather than delivery of the procedure in hospital settings.

Strengths and limitations

A strength of this review is the insight gained from studies that examined healthcare professionals’ and women’s perspectives, thus providing a more comprehensive understanding of the challenges involved in access to cervical screening for women with mobility impairments. The review also provides a unique focus on nursing practice in relation to cervical screening for an under-screened population. In addition, a double-screening approach was adopted for the search strategy to enhance rigour.

In each study, definitions of and the terminology used to describe physical disability varied. This created challenges in making comparisons across the studies and made summarising the findings complex. However, all the studies reviewed had commonalities in some form of physical impairment that affected the woman’s ability to move.

The term ‘adult women’ was used in the inclusion criteria in the literature search as this was the focus of the review, however the authors recognise this may not be fully representative of all individuals with lower limb mobility impairments who require cervical cancer screening. The authors suggest there is some transferability value of the findings to other populations with lower limb mobility impairments who require cervical screening.

Finally, while the review focused on cervical cancer screening, four studies also contained data on other types of cancer screening that could have negatively affected the quality of reporting in relation to cervical screening.

Conclusion

Women with mobility impairments are confronted with a series of challenges when attempting to access cervical screening. Structural access to buildings that provide healthcare services must be improved and appropriate equipment, such as adjustable examination tables, must be made available to facilitate equitable healthcare. There is also a need for specific education and guidelines for nurses on managing the needs of women with mobility impairments in relation to cervical screening. There is a lack of information about cervical screening for women with mobility impairments, which emphasises the importance of the health education role of the nurse in encouraging uptake. Nurses also have an important role in raising awareness of the higher incidence of cervical cancer in women with mobility impairments. Further research is required to establish if alternative cervical screening procedures for women with mobility impairments, such as HPV self-sampling, are viable options.

References

  1. Angus J, Seto L, Barry N et al (2012) Access to cancer screening for women with mobility disabilities. Journal of Cancer Education. 27, 1, 75-82. doi: 10.1007/s13187-011-0273-4
  2. Arbyn M, Anttila A, Jordan J et al (2010) European guidelines for quality assurance in cervical cancer screening. Second edition — summary document. Annals of Oncology. 21, 3, 448-458. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdp471
  3. Armstrong N, James V, Dixon-Woods M (2012) The role of primary care professionals in women’s experiences of cervical cancer screening: a qualitative study. Family Practice. 29, 4, 462-466. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmr105
  4. Baruch L, Bilitzky-Kopit A, Rosen K et al (2022) Cervical cancer screening among patients with physical disability. Journal of Women’s Health. 31, 8, 1173-1178. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2021.0447
  5. Cancer Research UK (2023) Cervical Cancer Statistics. http://cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/cervical-cancer (Last accessed: 28 June 2023.)
  6. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (2018) CASP Checklist: 10 Questions to Help you Make Sense of a Qualitative Research. http://casp-uk.net/images/checklist/documents/CASP-Qualitative-Studies-Checklist/CASP-Qualitative-Checklist-2018_fillable_form.pdf (Last accessed: 28 June 2023.)
  7. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (2020) CASP Randomised Controlled Trial Checklist. http://casp-uk.net/images/checklist/documents/CASP-Randomised-Controlled-Trial-Checklist/CASP-RCT-Checklist-PDF-Fillable-Form.pdf (Last accessed: 28 June 2023.)
  8. Groenewegen PP, Kroneman M, Spreeuwenberg P (2021) Physical accessibility of primary care facilities for people with disabilities: a cross-sectional survey in 31 countries. BMC Health Services Research. 21, 1, 107. doi: 10.1186/s12913-021-06120-0
  9. Hachipola M, Mweemba O, Sitali D (2017) Factors affecting accessibility of cervical cancer screening services for women with physical and sensory disabilities in Lusaka District, Zambia. Edorium Journal of Public Health. 4, 10-19. doi:10.5348/P16-2017-10-OA-2
  10. Halcomb EJ, Peters K, Smyth E (2019) Health screening for women with physical disability in Australian general practice: a survey. Collegian. 26, 2, 250-255. doi: 10.1016/j.colegn.2018.07.008
  11. Hanlon E, Payne D (2017) Cervical screening for women with physical disabilities. Kai Tiaki Nursing New Zealand. 23, 11, 22-44.
  12. Hong QN, Pluye P, Fàbregues S et al (2018) Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) Version 2018 User Guide. McGill University, Montréal QC.
  13. Iezzoni LI, Rao SR, Agaronnik ND et al (2021) Associations between disability and breast or cervical cancers, accounting for screening disparities. Medical Care. 59, 2, 139-147. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000001449
  14. Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust (2019) “We’re Made to Feel Invisible”. Barriers to Accessing Cervical Screening for Women with Physical Disabilities. http://jostrust.org.uk/sites/default/files/jos_physical_disability_report_0.pdf (Last accessed: 28 June 2023.)
  15. Johnson CA, James D, Marzan A et al (2019) Cervical cancer: an overview of pathophysiology and management. Seminars in Oncology Nursing. 35, 2, 166-174. doi: 10.1016/j.soncn.2019.02.003
  16. Kilic A, Tastan S, Guvenc G et al (2019) Breast and cervical cancer screening for women with physical disabilities: a qualitative study of experiences and barriers. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 75, 9, 1976-1986. doi: 10.1111/jan.14048
  17. King EM, Busolo DS (2022) The role of primary care nurse practitioners in reducing barriers to cervical cancer screening: a literature review. Canadian Oncology Nursing Journal. 32, 2, 233-244. doi: 10.5737/23688076322233244
  18. Madzima TR, Vahabi M, Lofters A (2017) Emerging role of HPV self-sampling in cervical cancer screening for hard-to-reach women: focused literature review. Canadian Family Physician. 63, 8, 597-601.
  19. Nemec M, Waller J, Barnes J et al (2022) Acceptability of extending HPV-based cervical screening intervals from 3 to 5 years: an interview study with women in England. BMJ Open. 12, e058635. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-058635
  20. NI Direct (2023) Cervical Screening. http://nidirect.gov.uk/articles/cervical-screening (Last accessed: 28 June 2023.)
  21. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM et al (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 372, n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71
  22. Pearson J, Payne D, Yoshida K et al (2020) Access to and engagement with cervical and breast screening services for women with disabilities in Aotearoa New Zealand. Disability and Rehabilitation. 44, 10, 1984-1995. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2020.1817158
  23. Peate I (2019) Cervical cancer screening programme. British Journal of Healthcare Assistants. 13, 11, 526-533. doi: 10.12968/bjha.2019.13.11.526
  24. Peterson JJ, Suzuki R, Walsh ES et al (2012) Improving cancer screening among women with mobility impairments: randomized controlled trial of a participatory workshop intervention. American Journal of Health Promotion. 26, 4, 212-216. doi: 10.4278/ajhp.100701-ARB-226
  25. Sakellariou D, Rotarou ES (2017) Utilisation of cancer screening services by disabled women in Chile. PLoS One. 12, 5, e0176270. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0176270
  26. Shah S, Taylor J, Bradbury-Jones C (2022) Barriers and enablers to participating in regular screening programmes for women with cerebral palsy: a qualitative life course study. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 78, 3, 823-833. doi: 10.1111/jan.15058
  27. Smith MA, Sherrah M, Sultana F et al (2022) National experience in the first two years of primary human papillomavirus (HPV) cervical screening in an HPV vaccinated population in Australia: observational study. BMJ. 376, e068582. doi: 10.1136/bmj-2021-068582
  28. Sonalkar S, Chavez V, McClusky J et al (2020) Gynecologic care for women with physical disabilities: a qualitative study of patients and providers. Women’s Health Issues. 30, 2, 136-141. doi: 10.1016/j.whi.2019.10.002
  29. Stillman MD, Bertocci G, Smalley C et al (2017) Healthcare utilization and associated barriers experienced by wheelchair users: a pilot study. Disability and Health Journal. 10, 4, 502-508. doi: 10.1016/j.dhjo.2017.02.003
  30. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL et al (2021) Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 71, 3, 209-249. doi: 10.3322/caac.21660
  31. Werner S, Shulman C (2015) Does type of disability make a difference in affiliate stigma among family caregivers of individuals with autism, intellectual disability or physical disability? Journal of Intellectual Disability Research. 59, 3, 272-283. doi: 10.1111/jir.12136
  32. Whittemore R, Knafl K (2005) The integrative review: updated methodology. JAN. 52, 5, 546-553. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x
  33. Young B, Robb KA (2021) Understanding patient factors to increase uptake of cancer screening: a review. Future Oncology. 17, 28, 3757-3775. doi: 10.2217/fon-2020-1078

Share this page

Related articles

Cervical screening programme targets ‘hard to reach’ women
Despite campaigns to highlight the importance of cervical...

An overview of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma
Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma is a heterogeneous group of...

Supporting delivery of the recovery package for people living with and beyond cancer
Survivorship is an important issue in cancer care in the UK....

Focus on patients with a family history of cancer
The breast cancer risk assessment service (BCRAS) at Guy’s...

Saudi Arabian women’s experiences of breast cancer treatment
Aim The aim of this study was to explore the cultural...